Sunday, May 21, 2006
Cracks in The Code
I read Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code” over a year ago. Its mix of fact and fiction is intriguing and suspenseful. The controversy that the book, and now the movie, has engendered has been interesting to follow. I looked forward to seeing the movie with anticipation, but after having seen it, I felt as if I had been sitting through a history class. Most of the film was interesting, but on the whole, it was not highly entertaining.
The movie was undoubtedly intended to be the “masterpiece painting” version of the book, but there are some cracks in the canvas. The movie seems to presuppose familiarity with the book, and probably cannot hang in a gallery on its own. If I had not read the book, I doubt I could have connected the motivation and significance of the characters with the action.
The movie, unlike the book, does not build in suspense and adventure to a dramatic climax. The action is splotchy, and does not flow seamlessly. The final scene revealing the grand secret seems almost to be an afterthought. The dialogue is often dry, like a mini history lecture. A few moments of light humor could help the movie’s pace and relieve the overly oppressive and somber tone. Indeed, the discomfiting footage of Silas and his self-flagellation and mutilation was excessive.
The chemistry between the main characters, Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu, is nonexistent. There is no edginess, no attraction, no competition, no brushstrokes of color—their interaction is perfunctorily flat and banal. The Langdon character epitomizes the stereotypical history professor—methodical, stodgy, and boring.
Despite the cracks, “The Da Vinci Code” is still art that can be appreciated. The film adequately paints the basic plot of the book, considering the time constraints of a movie. The sets and locations provide the appropriate ambience and mood. The hazy depictions of past history are notable and dramatic, although occasionally confusing. The technical animation of “The Last Supper” painting makes a visually fascinating and thought-provoking scene.
Certainly “The Da Vinci Code” fuels the fire already burning over the book’s controversial issues. Yet if unaffected entertainment is your goal, see Mission: Impossible III instead. It provides a lot of legitimate action, stunts, a simple, yet interesting plot, and Tom Cruise, who is a lot easier on the eyes than Tom Hanks. In fact, as each movie will probably have a long run at the box office, take time for both a fictionalized history lesson and some good entertainment.
The movie was undoubtedly intended to be the “masterpiece painting” version of the book, but there are some cracks in the canvas. The movie seems to presuppose familiarity with the book, and probably cannot hang in a gallery on its own. If I had not read the book, I doubt I could have connected the motivation and significance of the characters with the action.
The movie, unlike the book, does not build in suspense and adventure to a dramatic climax. The action is splotchy, and does not flow seamlessly. The final scene revealing the grand secret seems almost to be an afterthought. The dialogue is often dry, like a mini history lecture. A few moments of light humor could help the movie’s pace and relieve the overly oppressive and somber tone. Indeed, the discomfiting footage of Silas and his self-flagellation and mutilation was excessive.
The chemistry between the main characters, Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu, is nonexistent. There is no edginess, no attraction, no competition, no brushstrokes of color—their interaction is perfunctorily flat and banal. The Langdon character epitomizes the stereotypical history professor—methodical, stodgy, and boring.
Despite the cracks, “The Da Vinci Code” is still art that can be appreciated. The film adequately paints the basic plot of the book, considering the time constraints of a movie. The sets and locations provide the appropriate ambience and mood. The hazy depictions of past history are notable and dramatic, although occasionally confusing. The technical animation of “The Last Supper” painting makes a visually fascinating and thought-provoking scene.
Certainly “The Da Vinci Code” fuels the fire already burning over the book’s controversial issues. Yet if unaffected entertainment is your goal, see Mission: Impossible III instead. It provides a lot of legitimate action, stunts, a simple, yet interesting plot, and Tom Cruise, who is a lot easier on the eyes than Tom Hanks. In fact, as each movie will probably have a long run at the box office, take time for both a fictionalized history lesson and some good entertainment.
Comments:
<< Home
An excellent review. I, too, saw the movie and have much the same opinion. Look for Gene Shalit or Ebert and Roper to plagiarize your thoughts when they review it.
You have time for long runs, travel, reading, current movies-- AND-- writing erudite columns.....are you a woman of true leisure?
Of course. You forgot to mention my daily lengthy soaks in a bubble bath, followed by manicures and pedicures. The masseur, a Matthew McConaughey look-alike, comes on Tuesdays and Fridays.
I've been looking forward to the release of "The Da Vinci Code" since reading the book last year, both for the subject matter and the reputation of director Ron Howard. It has been very discouraging to read all the poor reviews this long anticipated movie has received. However, despite the bad reviews, I too will soon make my way to the theater to satisfy my own curiosity.
Thanks for the review.
Thanks for the review.
What an interesting review! I suppose I'll have to see the Da Vinci Code just to see whether I agree with your assessment. Do you think the extremely high expectations surrounding the movie influenced your opinion of it? It seems like most screen adaptations of books struggle to "live up to expectations." Oh well, I suppose as long as the studio grosses enough millions of dollars, they won't care too much how history regards the movie...
Post a Comment
<< Home
